4 ms·

I brought up the theory in other threads that the vaccine greatly reduces the chance of developing an infection but, conditional on infection, outcomes are the

by gfodor 5y ago

I brought up the theory in other threads that the vaccine greatly reduces the chance of developing an infection but, conditional on infection, outcomes are the same. Got massively downvoted for being anti-vax, of course, despite the point being that if true we should be aggressively vaccinating but stop telling vaccinated people they get "less sick" and if they develop any symptoms to take it as seriously as they would if they were unvaccinated. We're pretty screwed: tribalism has eaten through things enough that it's basically impossible to discuss these things.

Mikeb85 5y ago
They do get less sick though. There's a clear difference in outcomes even if the viral load at a certain point in time is the same.
standardUser 5y ago
"vaccine reduces the chance of developing an infection but, conditional on infection, outcomes are the same" That is a spectacularly wrong interpretation according to all the data.
- gfodor 5y ago
  I would like to update my priors if possible that this theory has been refuted. Can you provide counter evidence? Note that the theory does not influence the degree to which one should seek to get vaccinated. If you think that it does, you don't understand it.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    I'm perfectly happy to not understand your "theory".
    - gfodor 5y ago
      Not my theory, but thank you for so nicely demonstrating the problem. You have presumed I am anti-vax, and presumed the theory presented is anti-vax. But it's not. But you don't care. Nice work.
jaywalk 5y ago
It seems like it may be the opposite of what you're saying, though. Vaccinated are just as likely to be infected, but are infected for a shorter time and do tend to get less sick. Natural immunity from a previous infection still reigns supreme, though.
- juusto 5y ago
  Does it mean that a vaccinated person who caught the virus and developed minor symptoms has a better chance to develop longer lasting immunity than those only being vaccinated and without the dangers of no vaccine?
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    This study doesn't say anything about that, and I haven't seen any studies that look at that question specifically. I have seen studies that look at people who get vaccinated after having recovered from COVID, and they do tend to have the strongest antibodies. But nothing about antibodies from an infection after being vaccinated. I think that would be interesting to see.
- glogla 5y ago
  > Natural immunity from a previous infection still reigns supreme Except for the part where you had to get sick for the first time, risking death and long-covid. I also remember talks that the previous infection needs to be a serious one - asymptomatic case will not give strong enough immunity. But I'm not sure if that got confirmed.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    Well, a very large number of people got infected before they were even eligible to be vaccinated. So it is what it is. I have also heard that the severity of infection could determine the strength of immunity, but the studies done since then haven't found that to be the case. It may become more clear on a longer timeframe, but as of now who knows.
- shkkmo 5y ago
ceejayoz 5y ago
> conditional on infection, outcomes are the same We know this isn't true, though. Repeatedly, since the data from the first EUA for the Pfizer vaccine. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/09/covid-19-vaccines-protect-against-severe-illness-during-delta https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/09/covid-19... > The study authors note that unvaccinated people in the Delta-dominant era are more than 10 times likely to be hospitalized from COVID-19 or to die from it than vaccinated people are. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-reduce/fact-check-covid-19-vaccines-so-far-significantly-reduce-severe-illness-and-hospitalization-idUSL1N2PC2O9 https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-reduce/fac... > Meanwhile, most recent COVID-19 deaths have been among the unvaccinated. In Italy, 99% of COVID deaths since February were not fully vaccinated. Indonesian officials found unvaccinated people more than three times more likely to die of COVID-19 than those vaccinated. > In the U.S., unvaccinated people represent nearly 97% of severe cases, according to the White House COVID-19 Response Team.
- gfodor 5y ago
  "Conditional on infection" - thanks for demonstrating the error. https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine-statistics https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine...
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    That's a quote from your comment. You skimmed that article, didn't you? > The death rate if infected was always going to be higher in the vaccinated groups if most of the vaccinated were those likely to die in the first place. and in the comments, from the author, further explanation: > BUT. When you vaccinate everyone, you wind up reducing infections in the people who were never going to die. The young. That means the IFR in the whole population of vaccinated people is higher. The author is demonstrating issues with looking at IFR as a metric. The fact that a country (the US) with 65% vaccinated has 97% of severe cases in the unvaccinated speaks pretty solidly to efficacy at controlling severe disease.
    - 5y ago
verall 5y ago
You were probably downvoted for being incorrect rather than being antivax. Either way I'm not certain how it relates to the article. Viral load being the same doesn't mean that hospitalization rates or mortality rates are.
glogla 5y ago
I'm not sure that adds up - if that were the case, vaccinated people with breakthrough would have the same outcomes as infected unvaccinated people. But that does not seem so - the outcomes of vaccinated people are way better even when they end up in hospital. This paper would just show that viral load reduction is not the mechanism how this happens - which I don't know what mechanism would that be then - but the outcomes are still different.
- gfodor 5y ago
  > But that does not seem so - the outcomes of vaccinated people are way better even when they end up in hospital. I'd like to update my priors so can you provide any info on this?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    A smallish study out of India on hospitalized-only patients focusing on mortality specifically: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8313045/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8313045/ > A total of 332 (28.4%) patients died. Among fully vaccinated, 12.5% (23/184) died while it was 31.4% (309/984) among unvaccinated. Being fully vaccinated was associated with lower mortality than either unvaccinated (Unadjusted OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.5, p < 0.0001) or partially vaccinated (Unadjusted OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.5, p < 0.0001) status. There was no significant difference between unvaccinated vs. partially vaccinated (Unadjusted OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.6, P = 0.3).
    - gfodor 5y ago
      Helpful, thank you! (Its worth noticing exactly what happened here, and your previous responses a) citing information which was irrelevant to the theory I raised and b) you jumping to conclusions about my intent/agenda.)
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        It's also worth noticing this took about 30 seconds to find via a quick Googling.
revscat 5y ago
Tribalism may be the cause, but the cure (perhaps) is to approach these things in good faith. There are so many bad faith actors out there whose primary purpose is to evangelize, intentionally sow division, or both.
shkkmo 5y ago
The science very clearly shows that your chances of severe illness / death are much lower for vacinated covid patients. This has been widely shown to be true for quite a while.
- gfodor 5y ago
  I would like a citation or which shows that breakthrough cases that lead to hospitalization for vaccinated people have better outcomes from that point forward than unvaccinated who are hospitalized.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    That's an entirely different claim than the one you made (and the one you're replying to), which was predicated on infection, not hospitalization.
    - gfodor 5y ago
      I didn't make any claims. I am vaccinated + boosted. Stop presuming I'm anti-vax and demonstrating the exact dynamic I mentioned. If you can provide useful information around either conditional probability functions (positive test, or hospitalization) I welcome it. But you haven't cited literally anything, just responded to try to score points, I guess.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        They said: > The science very clearly shows that your chances of severe illness / death are much lower for vacinated covid patients. You replied (emphasis mine): > I would like a citation or which shows that breakthrough cases that lead to hospitalization for vaccinated people have better outcomes from that point forward than unvaccinated who are hospitalized. These are substantially different scenarios.
        gfodor 5y ago
        Correct. As acknowledged, if you read my responses. In both cases, the public messaging is that vaccination provides substantial benefits throughout the entire funnel. The point is that the public messaging is damaging if it turns out that the conditionals are misleading. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I would like to see compelling evidence to dial in my priors. The links you have shared so far do not talk about this problem. Edit: Maybe before replying again aggressively, you take a stab at repeating the overarching argument back to me, and the consequences of if it were proven true. Hint: if it were proven true, the result would not be to reduce the incentives of vaccination whatsoever.
Godel_unicode 5y ago
It's only impossible to discuss them if your argument is based on a strawman that's been repeatedly debunked by actual science. People are exhausted with all the hypotheticals that are predicated on the things that are not true being true.
yibg 5y ago
You were probably downvoted because the “theory” is just wrong according to every piece of data we have. How did you even come up with this theory? Was it based on some evidence or just something that felt right to you?
- gfodor 5y ago
  Pfizer data https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine-statistics https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine...
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    So you read one article about a early study of vaccine efficacy that clearly states it's limitations and then decided that was good enough and stopped following any of the data that has come out since then. You keep asking for "data to update you priors", but it is easy to find such data if you were actually interested.

by gfodor 5y ago

Mikeb85 5y ago

They do get less sick though. There's a clear difference in outcomes even if the viral load at a certain point in time is the same.

standardUser 5y ago

"vaccine reduces the chance of developing an infection but, conditional on infection, outcomes are the same" That is a spectacularly wrong interpretation according to all the data.

gfodor 5y ago
I would like to update my priors if possible that this theory has been refuted. Can you provide counter evidence? Note that the theory does not influence the degree to which one should seek to get vaccinated. If you think that it does, you don't understand it.
- standardUser 5y ago
  I'm perfectly happy to not understand your "theory".
  - gfodor 5y ago
    Not my theory, but thank you for so nicely demonstrating the problem. You have presumed I am anti-vax, and presumed the theory presented is anti-vax. But it's not. But you don't care. Nice work.

jaywalk 5y ago

It seems like it may be the opposite of what you're saying, though. Vaccinated are just as likely to be infected, but are infected for a shorter time and do tend to get less sick. Natural immunity from a previous infection still reigns supreme, though.

juusto 5y ago
Does it mean that a vaccinated person who caught the virus and developed minor symptoms has a better chance to develop longer lasting immunity than those only being vaccinated and without the dangers of no vaccine?
- jaywalk 5y ago
  This study doesn't say anything about that, and I haven't seen any studies that look at that question specifically. I have seen studies that look at people who get vaccinated after having recovered from COVID, and they do tend to have the strongest antibodies. But nothing about antibodies from an infection after being vaccinated. I think that would be interesting to see.
glogla 5y ago
> Natural immunity from a previous infection still reigns supreme Except for the part where you had to get sick for the first time, risking death and long-covid. I also remember talks that the previous infection needs to be a serious one - asymptomatic case will not give strong enough immunity. But I'm not sure if that got confirmed.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  Well, a very large number of people got infected before they were even eligible to be vaccinated. So it is what it is. I have also heard that the severity of infection could determine the strength of immunity, but the studies done since then haven't found that to be the case. It may become more clear on a longer timeframe, but as of now who knows.
shkkmo 5y ago

ceejayoz 5y ago

> conditional on infection, outcomes are the same We know this isn't true, though. Repeatedly, since the data from the first EUA for the Pfizer vaccine. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/09/covid-19-vaccines-protect-against-severe-illness-during-delta https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/09/covid-19... > The study authors note that unvaccinated people in the Delta-dominant era are more than 10 times likely to be hospitalized from COVID-19 or to die from it than vaccinated people are. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-reduce/fact-check-covid-19-vaccines-so-far-significantly-reduce-severe-illness-and-hospitalization-idUSL1N2PC2O9 https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-reduce/fac... > Meanwhile, most recent COVID-19 deaths have been among the unvaccinated. In Italy, 99% of COVID deaths since February were not fully vaccinated. Indonesian officials found unvaccinated people more than three times more likely to die of COVID-19 than those vaccinated. > In the U.S., unvaccinated people represent nearly 97% of severe cases, according to the White House COVID-19 Response Team.

gfodor 5y ago
"Conditional on infection" - thanks for demonstrating the error. https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine-statistics https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine...
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  That's a quote from your comment. You skimmed that article, didn't you? > The death rate if infected was always going to be higher in the vaccinated groups if most of the vaccinated were those likely to die in the first place. and in the comments, from the author, further explanation: > BUT. When you vaccinate everyone, you wind up reducing infections in the people who were never going to die. The young. That means the IFR in the whole population of vaccinated people is higher. The author is demonstrating issues with looking at IFR as a metric. The fact that a country (the US) with 65% vaccinated has 97% of severe cases in the unvaccinated speaks pretty solidly to efficacy at controlling severe disease.
  - 5y ago

verall 5y ago

You were probably downvoted for being incorrect rather than being antivax. Either way I'm not certain how it relates to the article. Viral load being the same doesn't mean that hospitalization rates or mortality rates are.

glogla 5y ago

I'm not sure that adds up - if that were the case, vaccinated people with breakthrough would have the same outcomes as infected unvaccinated people. But that does not seem so - the outcomes of vaccinated people are way better even when they end up in hospital. This paper would just show that viral load reduction is not the mechanism how this happens - which I don't know what mechanism would that be then - but the outcomes are still different.

gfodor 5y ago
> But that does not seem so - the outcomes of vaccinated people are way better even when they end up in hospital. I'd like to update my priors so can you provide any info on this?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  A smallish study out of India on hospitalized-only patients focusing on mortality specifically: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8313045/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8313045/ > A total of 332 (28.4%) patients died. Among fully vaccinated, 12.5% (23/184) died while it was 31.4% (309/984) among unvaccinated. Being fully vaccinated was associated with lower mortality than either unvaccinated (Unadjusted OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.5, p < 0.0001) or partially vaccinated (Unadjusted OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.5, p < 0.0001) status. There was no significant difference between unvaccinated vs. partially vaccinated (Unadjusted OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.6, P = 0.3).
  - gfodor 5y ago
    Helpful, thank you! (Its worth noticing exactly what happened here, and your previous responses a) citing information which was irrelevant to the theory I raised and b) you jumping to conclusions about my intent/agenda.)
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      It's also worth noticing this took about 30 seconds to find via a quick Googling.

revscat 5y ago

Tribalism may be the cause, but the cure (perhaps) is to approach these things in good faith. There are so many bad faith actors out there whose primary purpose is to evangelize, intentionally sow division, or both.

shkkmo 5y ago

The science very clearly shows that your chances of severe illness / death are much lower for vacinated covid patients. This has been widely shown to be true for quite a while.

gfodor 5y ago
I would like a citation or which shows that breakthrough cases that lead to hospitalization for vaccinated people have better outcomes from that point forward than unvaccinated who are hospitalized.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  That's an entirely different claim than the one you made (and the one you're replying to), which was predicated on infection, not hospitalization.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    I didn't make any claims. I am vaccinated + boosted. Stop presuming I'm anti-vax and demonstrating the exact dynamic I mentioned. If you can provide useful information around either conditional probability functions (positive test, or hospitalization) I welcome it. But you haven't cited literally anything, just responded to try to score points, I guess.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      They said: > The science very clearly shows that your chances of severe illness / death are much lower for vacinated covid patients. You replied (emphasis mine): > I would like a citation or which shows that breakthrough cases that lead to hospitalization for vaccinated people have better outcomes from that point forward than unvaccinated who are hospitalized. These are substantially different scenarios.
      - gfodor 5y ago
        Correct. As acknowledged, if you read my responses. In both cases, the public messaging is that vaccination provides substantial benefits throughout the entire funnel. The point is that the public messaging is damaging if it turns out that the conditionals are misleading. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I would like to see compelling evidence to dial in my priors. The links you have shared so far do not talk about this problem. Edit: Maybe before replying again aggressively, you take a stab at repeating the overarching argument back to me, and the consequences of if it were proven true. Hint: if it were proven true, the result would not be to reduce the incentives of vaccination whatsoever.

Godel_unicode 5y ago

It's only impossible to discuss them if your argument is based on a strawman that's been repeatedly debunked by actual science. People are exhausted with all the hypotheticals that are predicated on the things that are not true being true.

yibg 5y ago

You were probably downvoted because the “theory” is just wrong according to every piece of data we have. How did you even come up with this theory? Was it based on some evidence or just something that felt right to you?

gfodor 5y ago
Pfizer data https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine-statistics https://drrollergator.substack.com/p/damned-lies-and-vaccine...
- shkkmo 5y ago
  So you read one article about a early study of vaccine efficacy that clearly states it's limitations and then decided that was good enough and stopped following any of the data that has come out since then. You keep asking for "data to update you priors", but it is easy to find such data if you were actually interested.